1

BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT ADVISORY

COMMITTEE: STREAMLINING FEDERAL

SITING WORKING GROUP

AMENDED FINAL REPORT, NOV. 9, 2017

Contents SUMMARY OF CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS............................................................................. 2

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 3

RECOMMENDED SOLUTIONS TO ADDRESS FEDERAL SITING CHALLENGES ......................... 4

1. Varying and unpredictable fees and rates ...................................................................................... 4

2. Lengthy application review times ................................................................................................. 5

3. Unharmonized application forms and unpredictable processes across agencies ............................. 7

4. Cumbersome historic and environmental review processes ......................................................... 10

5. Lease and renewal terms that do not incentivize investment ....................................................... 12

6. Unclear points of contact for local, state, and federal leads for agencies ...................................... 12

7. Difficulty getting updates on status of applications and lack of transparency in agency-deployment

application process history ................................................................................................................. 13

8. Lack of re-evaluation of processes and fees as technologies evolve ............................................ 14

9. DoD siting process costly and time-consuming .......................................................................... 14

10. Siting barriers caused by federal funding clauses .................................................................... 15

2

SUMMARY OF CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS

1. Challenge: Varying and unpredictable fees and rates.

Solution: Standardize and publish fee schedules and utilize revenue in a way that promotes

expediting federal siting processes.

2. Challenge: Lengthy application review times.

Solution: Require all federal landholding or managing agencies to prioritize broadband

permitting. Implement a 60-day shot clock for application review with a deemed approved

remedy and a 10-day shot clock for notification of additional materials request.

3. Challenge: Unharmonized application forms and unpredictable processes across agencies.

Solution: Require all federal landholding or managing agencies to use one standardized

application form. Harmonize permitting processes across agencies to extent feasible and ensure

the process is uniformly applied across regional and state offices. Recognize and accept existing

completed studies in previously disturbed areas.

4. Challenge: Cumbersome historic and environmental review processes including environmental

studies and Geographic Information System studies.

Solution: Harmonize environmental assessments across federal landholding or managing

agencies, further streamline National Environmental Protection Act and National Historic

Preservation Act exclusions, and eliminate duplicative environmental studies. Make current

environmental and historic review streamlining mechanisms mandatory for all agencies.

5. Challenge: Lease and renewal terms that do not incentivize investment.

Solution: All leases and easements should have 30 or more-year terms with expectancy of

renewal to better incentivize investment.

6. Challenge: Unclear points of contact for local, state, and federal leads for agencies.

Solution: Every project should have a single, clear point of contact for application review and

follow-up.

7. Challenge: Difficulty getting updates on status of applications and lack of transparency in

agency-deployment application process history.

Solution: There should be a single, easily accessible online-tracking mechanism at each federal

agency for the permitting process. All agencies should regularly report on permit status, the

number of permitting applications they have processed, and on coverage gaps.

8. Challenge: Lack of re-evaluation of processes and fees as technologies evolve.

3

Solution: The common application form should accommodate changes to existing installations

and applicable leases and easements. Agencies should accommodate and incorporate new

broadband infrastructure technologies into their review processes.

9. Challenge: Department of Defense Siting Process is costly and time-consuming.

Solution: permitting Consistent with all necessary measures to protect national security,

Department of Defense (DoD) agencies should incorporate streamlining efforts utilized and

recommended for other federal agencies and examine their military base broadband deployment

permitting practices on DoD real estate. DoD agencies should streamline their spectrum clearance

processes.

10. Challenge: Siting barriers caused by federal funding clauses.

Solution: Deploying broadband is not within the meaning of prohibiting commercial use of land

developments funded by federal grants.

INTRODUCTION

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) Broadband Deployment Advisory

Committee, Streamlining Federal Siting Working Group (Working Group) applauds the Commission’s

interests in removing regulatory barriers to broadband deployment on federal lands and property, which

amounts to nearly 30 percent of the U.S. landmass. As Chairman Pai correctly noted, “[broadband is]

becoming the 21st-century gateway to jobs, health care, education, information, and economic

development everywhere, from the smallest town to the largest city.”1 Developing recommendations to

improve the process of siting on federal lands and federally managed properties, as this Working Group

has been tasked,2 will incentivize investment in the deployment of next-generation broadband that will

enhance public safety and enable smart solutions in communities across the country.

The Working Group recommends that the FCC evaluate the solutions herein presented to determine

which government entity(ies) should effectuate and implement the proposed action. The Working Group

encourages the FCC to continue in its advisory capacity to the Broadband Interagency Working Group

(formerly the Broadband Opportunity Council) to provide broadband infrastructure policy expertise and

ensure that the recommendations herein contained are implemented effectively.

Through its deliberations, the Working Group found that the fundamental concerns regarding the

streamlining of federal siting are 1.) predictability and complexity of the application process and

accompanying requirements and 2.) the application review time.

1 Chairman Pai Forms Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee, FCC News Release (Jan. 31, 2017), available at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-343242A1.pdf. 2 By the direction of FCC staff, the Streamlining Federal Siting Working Group was instructed not to include Tribal lands in the Working Group’s deliberations and recommendations.

4

RECOMMENDED SOLUTIONS TO ADDRESS

FEDERAL SITING CHALLENGES

1. Varying and unpredictable fees and rates

The Working Group recommends that all administrative fees associated with federal siting applications

should be set at a national level. Additionally, all federal agencies should publish a public fee schedule

outlining the costs associated with granting property interests to providers to deploy broadband

communications facilities on federal lands. Such guidance would give broadband providers greater

predictability and knowledge of the cost of a potential build. Further, the publication of an agency fee

schedule would remove months of time spent by both sides negotiating what could otherwise be a

standard rate that incorporates an escalation clause accounting for inflation.

Security deposit requirements also vary and are unpredictable. Working Group members agree that

requirements for a security deposit are misplaced prior to the lease or easement negotiation stage. While

an application fee is reasonably required with the proposed form, it would be highly unusual and

burdensome to require a security deposit prior to negotiation and execution of a lease or easement. As a

practice, security deposits are generally collected from credit poor, unknown tenants, in contrast to the

broadband providers who have decades of experience across the country with federal civilian and military

sites. Therefore, there should be no need for security deposits. Artificially increasing the cost of deploying

broadband infrastructure is contrary to the national policy of accelerating broadband availability.

However, should a deposit be required, deposits should be refunded if an agreement is not executed due

to no fault of applicant.

Additionally, the Working Group recommends that federal agencies utilize predictable measurers for rent

increases such as annual Consumer Price Index or fixed percent increases. Fair market appraisal updates

should be conducted every ten years instead of every five years. Also, an agency should not require a

provider to share with the agency the revenue it obtains from subsequent collocators. Where a military

installation is the sole or primary beneficiary of the infrastructure, agencies should allow for rent

elimination or in-kind rent reduction.

Because many federal agencies express that staff constraints are a cause of delay in reviewing siting

applications, the Working Group recommends that all federal agencies should receive more of the revenue they generate from broadband deployment. Agencies can use the revenue retained to hire more

staff to focus on their communications site programs to improve response times and enable other

efficiencies. Similarly, there should be reasonable revenue share for broadband infrastructure siting between agency headquarters and field offices. Field offices gaining revenue from the applications they

process may provide incentives to streamline the application process and review more applications.

The Working Group discovered that not all equipment deployed on federal lands and property receive the

same review scrutiny as broadband infrastructure. Agencies should ensure that broadband service is

treated similarly to utilities deployed on federal lands, which typically receive faster approvals at lower

costs.

5

2. Lengthy application review times In keeping with the national goal of ensuring that “all people of the United State have access to broadband

capability”3 and whereas there is national agreement to eliminate barriers to broadband infrastructure

deployment,4 Congress should mandate that all federal agencies prioritize broadband permitting and

implement funding and application review changes that reflect the prioritization of broadband

deployment.

Infrastructure providers report delays in broadband permitting application processing across federal

agencies. For example, InterConnect Towers (ICT), a wireless infrastructure provider that has been

providing wireless coverage on federal land since 1998, provided data to the Working Group that ICT

alone has 30 serialized Bureau of Land Management applications across California, Nevada, and Arizona

that have been pending since 2013.5

The Department of Interior (DOI) is working to streamline its infrastructure project review processes as

evidenced by the recent release of its Order “Streamlining NEPA and Implementation of Executive Order

13807 Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process

for Infrastructure Projects,” which creates a target for each DOI bureau to “complete each Final

[Environmental Impact Statements] for which it is the lead agency within 1 year from the issuance of a

Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare and EIS.”6 However, Working Group members agree that all federal

landholding and managing agencies can do more to reduce review times in all of their broadband

permitting steps.

Consequently, the Working Group urges the FCC to emphasize that timely responses to broadband siting

applications are mandatory. Consistent with GSA Bulletin FMR 2007-B2, agencies should be required to

process and respond to each application within a specified time period – no more than 60 days.

Additionally, applications should be “deemed approved” upon passage of time. Expanding broadband is a

very important national policy objective, and wireline and wireless broadband are dynamic technologies.

Accordingly, federal agencies should apply the FCC’s deemed approved policy whereby applications that

are neither formally approved nor rejected within 180 days of submission for initial installation requests

(or 90 days in the case of collocations or modifications) should be deemed approved (subject to relevant

agency-specific statutory authority to provide a deemed approved remedy).7 These timeframes are the

3 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-5, § 6001(k)(2)(D), 123 Stat. 115, 516 (2009). 4 Broadband: Deploying America’s 21st Century Infrastructure: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on the

Communications and Technology of the H. Comm. on Energy and Commerce Committee, 115th Cong. (Mar. 17,

2017) (Majority Subcomm Staff Memorandum to Members), available at

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF16/20170321/105740/HHRG-115-IF16-20170321-SD002-U1.pdf. 5 See, Comments of Interconnect Towers LLC, DOI Docket No. 2017-0003-0191, at 2, 13 (filed October 10 2017) (noting “ICT alone, for example, has 30 serialized applications across California, Nevada, and Arizona that have

been pending since 2013 (See Attachment A)”). 6 Secretarial Order 3355, Streamlining NEPA and Implementation of Executive Order 13807 Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects, Section 4.a.(2),

(Dep’t of Interior Aug. 31, 2017), available at https://elips.doi.gov/elips/0/doc/4581/Page1.aspx. 7 See Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (“Spectrum Act”), Pub. L. No. 112-96, 126 Stat. 156,

232-33 § 6409(a) (2012) (“Spectrum Act”) (codified at 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a)). Acceleration of Broadband

Deployment by Improving Wireless Facilities Siting Policies, Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 12865, 12866-67 ¶ 3

(2014) (“2014 Wireless Infrastructure Order”), aff’d, Montgomery County v. F.C.C., 811 F.3d 121 (4th Cir. 2015).

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/08/15/presidential-executive-order-establishing-discipline-and-accountability

6

same intervals that the FCC established for municipalities in land use approvals in order to expedite

broadband infrastructure deployment.8 Without this safeguard, applications may languish for years at

executive agencies, which is contrary to the national policy promoting wireline and wireless broadband

throughout all federal properties.

The Working Group recommends that if requested or needed, a walk-out of the property with the

requesting provider and responsible personnel of the agency should occur within 30 days of the filing of

an application, and the provider may file a revised, more detailed application, reflecting the input and

discussion with the responsible agency personnel during the property walk-out. If an application is

revised, it should be approved within 60 days of the submission of the revised application. The federal

agency should notify the applicant within ten days of receipt of the application if the agency believes the

application is not materially complete and it needs to be amended or modified. The agency should

identify the specific form for incompleteness. The applicant should submit the revised application within

60 days of being notified of the error. If an application is rejected, the decision should list in writing all

factual, policy, and legal grounds for rejection as well as a contact person for escalation. Sites sometimes

go into holdover status after completion of a lease term but before renewal. Therefore, the Working

Group also recommends that application review priority be given to site permit agreements that are

expired or soon to expire.

Additionally, efficiencies would be gained if federal agencies are able to use the applicant’s diligence to

shorten approval times and reduce costs. For instance, rather than perform all portions of the application

review itself, a federal agency could use recent site inspection photos to supplement its own inspection

process. The reviewing agency could also use National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews and

other regulatory studies completed recently by the applicant. There should be a formalized process for

agencies to utilize past NEPA review materials regardless of which agency conducted the review.

Similarly, the Working Group recommends the development of formalized guidance on scenarios in

which a project is likely to involve multiple agencies. The lead agency reviewing the application should

highlight and coordinate with the other agencies that should be involved.

To further expedite the application process, agencies should automatically accept document revision

requests to correct obvious clerical errors within an application. A common clerical error requiring

application correction is an incorrect/incomplete entity name in the preamble, body, and/or signature

block of an application. Additionally, document preparers should have flexibility in cases where

applicants are reasonably unable to comply with specific provisions. The most common example involves

the insurance provisions. Often, the federal insurance requirements are not commercially available, but

the agencies are unable to revise the requirements for them in the application. Specifically, the

government unrealistically requires “per occurrence” insurance coverage amounts in lieu of adequate

coverage in the aggregate.

8 The FCC is currently reviewing comments about expanding the applicability of “deemed approved” proposals.

Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking, Notice of Inquiry, and Request for Comment, FCC 17-38 (rel. Apr. 21, 2017) ¶¶ 8-9. Any

“deemed approved” remedy adopted by the FCC should be the standard applied by all federal agencies.

7

The Working Group also recommends that federal agencies presume broadband siting applications to be

consistent with each agency’s mission and property use. Consistent with Section 704 of the

Telecommunications Act, applications to place communications facilities should be approved unless they

are determined, on the basis of all relevant evidence, to be in direct and complete conflict with an

agency’s mission. The existence of other providers’ wireline and/or wireless facilities at the application

site provides a strong presumption that similar installations are consistent with the agency’s mission and

use of its property. If the executive agency rejects an application because it is in direct conflict with the

agency’s mission or use of its property, the executive agency should provide in writing all factual bases

proving that the application is in direct and complete conflict with the agency’s mission or use of its

property. Those factual bases should be provided to the provider in writing, concurrently with the

rejection.

Having pre-approved installation types with the ability to make minor pre-approved changes would lessen

the burden on the agency for approval and will result in faster installation for the service provider. The

Working Group encourages agencies to use Program Comments, Programmatic Environmental

Assessments, or other vehicles to identify categories of facilities to apply streamlined approval.9 Pre-

approved installation types could vary based on the type of agency and the nature of the site region or

specific location. These pre-approved installation types could be listed on the agencies website or

documentation. This would also allow the agency to promote certain types of installations they prefer by

making the approval and permitting process for those particular types of installations streamlined.

3. Unharmonized application forms and unpredictable

processes across agencies

Unharmonized application forms

The Working Group recommends that there be one required, standardized siting permit application form

for agencies to use with elements that apply to specific agencies. Agencies should work with industry to

create standard templates to be applied across all agencies and within the different offices within each

agency.

In 2015, the General Service Administration released its Wireless Telecommunications Company

Application (GSA Common Form Application) to serve as a common application “for use by all land-

holding executive agencies, streamlin[ing] the collection of business information that will be used by the

Federal Government to negotiate specific antenna installation contracts and to obtain a point of contact

for each applicant.”10 Being over two years out from release, agencies and industry should evaluate the

effectiveness of the GSA Common Form Application. The Working Group proposes that GSA revise its

Common Form Application as follows:

o GSA should require each agency to provide a contact person for handling applications

related to each property. Under the Section “Potential Antenna Lessee Document Check List,”

9 See Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), Program Comment for Communications Projects on

Federal Lands and Property (May 8, 2017), available at http://www.achp.gov/docs/broadband-program-

comment.pdf (ACHP Program Comment). 10 General Service Administration, Wireless Telecommunications Company Application (current revision Sep.

2015), available at https://www.gsa.gov/forms-library/wireless-telecommunications-company-application.

8

the form states that a provider may contact the “Contracting Officer or the Contracting Officer

Representative listed on the application...” GSA should clarify that all executive agencies must

provide and maintain a current online listing of the name and contact information for a

contracting officer or representative for each federal property for industry members to contact

with questions related to the application form or wireless installation process.

o A single online tracking mechanism should be utilized. GSA should require documentation of

an online application tracking mechanism for each agency so that the agenc(ies) and applicant can

efficiently track the progress and status of an application request. This will facilitate efficient

handling and processing of applications. This mechanism can also help applications stay on track

to meet required timelines and serve as a useful tool to communicate about application progress

and status. The tracking mechanism will identify the appropriate offices responsible for each

broadband siting application, along with point of contact information.

o RFI certification report requirement should be clarified. A Radio Frequency Identification

(RFI) certification report is listed as a potential document that may be required under the common

application Document Check List. This section should be clarified to state that RFI reports are not

required outside of military installations. Such reports have not been necessary over decades of

industry experience, and there is no need to add an additional report that has not been required

previously.

o The application form should not implicate a JSC review for commercial providers of

unlicensed wireless services. An FCC license is typically not required to operate unlicensed

wireless services for operations that meet certain FCC requirements for unlicensed use of

spectrum, such as non-interference and power limits. Therefore, unlicensed use that meets this

standard should not be subjected to additional spectrum reviews, such as the Joint Spectrum

Center (JSC) review. The Defense Information Systems Agency operates JSC as a required

process by GSA and the Department of Defense to identify and mitigate electromagnetic

interference to base electronics and spectrum-dependent systems before approving a commercial

wireless system installation. The actions GSA takes with the common application in proposing a

common application form for siting wireless facilities on federal land or buildings should not

trigger a JSC review for commercial providers of unlicensed wireless services.

o “Federal, state and local statutory recording requirements” should be clarified or deleted.

This section should be clarified to either describe exactly what is being required, or it should be

omitted. Recording requirements may be a protection or benefit to the applicant. However, to the

extent this type of document has not been required previously, it should not impose a new

requirement on providers.

o For the reasons discussed in the fees and rates section above, all requirements for a security

deposit should be eliminated at the application stage.

o Requirements for a performance bond should be eliminated. The requirement for a

performance bond has not been a common practice in federal wireline or wireless siting, and

adding this new requirement at the application stage is both unnecessary and contrary to the

policy objective of removing obstacles to accelerated broadband investment and availability. This

is especially true when a national wireless provider is the applicant, and there has been no

showing that a performance bond is necessary for these providers or any others at the application

stage.

9

o Certain information requested is too broad. The requested fields of “Name of Officers,

Members, or Owners of Concern, Partnership, etc.,” “Federal EIN / State Tax ID,” and “D&B

Rating,” lie outside of normal business purposes. The requested “FCC License” information field

would not apply to certain applicants, namely, neutral-host wireless providers. The “Person

Authorized to Sign Contracts” information is too detailed; there is no reason to provide detailed

contact information for someone who will not be handling the day-to-day issues at the site.

Moreover, most companies have multiple potential signing parties, but this form only allows for

one. Finally, more feedback on what numbers 1 and 7 are meant to reference on the “Potential

Document Check List” would be helpful to applicants.

o GSA should clarify the title of the proposed common form application. In its request for public

comments, GSA referred to the proposed application as the “Wireless Telecommunications

Industry Application”; however, the application form is titled “Wireless Telecommunications

Company Application.” For clarity and consistency, GSA should clarify the title of the common

form application.

o Application forms should be utilized to initiate amendments to existing installations and the

applicable lease, easement or right-of-way. Given the continually changing technology and rapid

growth of broadband, it is common practice that broadband installations will be modified one or

more times over the course of the multi-year arrangement, and some site augments may involve

an amendment to the controlling legal arrangement, whether a lease, easement, right-of-way or

otherwise. Common form applications are a convenient and logical mechanism for triggering,

tracking and managing such amendments. Thus, GSA should clarify that all executive agencies

shall utilize the GSA application form for new wireless infrastructure requests, and for

amendments to existing wireless infrastructure.

Unpredictable processes across agencies The Working Group urges that broadband infrastructure siting processes should be harmonized across

agencies to the extent possible. Also, there should be consistency in how files are processed by the

various offices within each agency. Each agency should create a uniform process within each of its

regional, state, and field offices.

To ease the burden of the applicant communicating with multiple agencies involved with a site with their

varying processes, the Working Group recommends a standardized approach to mapping out which

agencies will be involved with a project early on in the application process. There should be a process to

ensure that relevant information is shared with the federal agencies involved. Such a system can be

executed through the GSA Common Form Application or a similar common application if there is a field

on the application to check a box for potentially involved agencies. GSA should mandate standard

template contract(s) that apply across all federal agencies. These contracts should be executable in 30-60

days.

Additionally, the Working Group suggests that agencies measure the number of contracts they sign for

new sites and new carriers on existing sites. Tracking executed contracts will help measure whether

broadband deployment is in fact increasing on federal lands and property. There should be incentives for

agencies approving applications. One such incentive could be that agencies receive partial fee retention

through, for example retaining initial rents.

10

All federal agencies with land management authority should update and harmonize their rights-of-way

rules. For example, Department of Interior agencies should update its rights-of-way rules to align to the

Bureau of Indian Affairs updated rights-of-way rules with respect to application timelines, effective in

2016. Each agency should conduct a thorough evaluation of their siting rules and processes and

streamline them to reduce burdens and encourage investment in broadband deployment. Certain federal

land management agencies follow regulations that require infrastructure providers to hold FCC licenses or

utilize agreements with the same requirement. These provisions are holdovers from when licensed carriers

constructed their own infrastructure.

Policy changes such as allowing applicants to opt in to the rates, terms, and conditions of other providers

located at the federal property would encourage investment. Once a federal property is opened for any

telecommunications provider, then the property should be open to any and all other providers, without

delay, on a non-discriminatory basis to the extent feasible by engineering standards. For example, if one

provider’s equipment is located on a water tank, then a subsequent provider should be permitted to

collocate, as engineering permits, on that same water tank in a substantially similar, but not necessarily

identical fashion, opting into the rates, terms and conditions of the initial provider’s lease or easement or

other legal arrangement. This procedure is consistent with, and may be required by, the anti-

discrimination requirement in Section 704(c) of the Telecommunications Act.

Additionally, access to federal lands sites for wireless infrastructure development should be available to

tower owners, operators, managers, and other authorized personnel, where applicable. Obvious exceptions

for security reasons aside, infrastructure providers need to be able to access the sites quickly, especially in

the case of emergencies. Federal agencies should be directed to recognize tower operator sublease and

management interests. Some agencies do not consider that tower operators lease or manage a significant

number of towers that are still owned by the carriers.

4. Cumbersome historic and environmental review processes

The Working Group recommends that environmental assessments be harmonized across agencies to

reduce confusion and redundancy. Environmental impact studies should be valid for a reasonable amount

of time so they do not have to be redone. Where surveys or other studies are completed as part of the

environmental review, those findings should be available to federal agencies and applicants to use during

the reasonable time period.

All federal agencies should ease permitting requirements in previously disturbed areas that have

previously undergone environmental review. All federal agencies should streamline their National

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) historic preservation review process by finalizing a list of broadband

activities exempted from Section 106 consultation. The Working Group recommends that the FCC

expand E106 & FCC Tower Construction Notification System program. All federal agencies should also

finalize NEPA categorical exclusions that will exempt broadband projects from Environmental

Assessments for sites that involve, for example, cell site compounds, aerial cable, and previously

disturbed grounds.

11

The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) should clarify applicability of its new Program

Comment for Communications Projects on Federal Lands and Property11 to all federal agencies, revising

the introduction, “Federal LMAs/PMAs may elect to follow this Program Comment in lieu of the

procedures in 36 CFR §§800.3 through 800.7 for individual undertakings falling within its scope.” To

avoid confusion, “may elect” should be struck and ACHP should affirmatively require the use of the

Program Comment by all federal agencies. The Working Group recommends the following additional

changes to the Program Comment:

1. The Program Comment should be revised to apply to all Federal Land Managing Agencies

(LMAs) and Federal Property Managing Agencies (PMAs). As currently drafted, elective

utilization of the Program Comment process does not ensure the expedited and efficient siting

procedures necessary to better serve the exponentially growing data demands on networks

and the underlying infrastructure.

2. Agencies should be required to process and respond to each application within a specified

time period—no more than 60 days.

3. If requested or needed, a walk-out of the property with the requesting provider and

responsible personnel of the agency should occur within 30 days of the filing of an

application, and the provider may file a revised, more detailed application, reflecting the

input and discussion with the responsible agency personnel during the property walk-out. If

an application is revised, it should be approved within 60 days of the submission of the

revised application. The agency should notify the applicant within 10 days of receipt if the

agency believes the application is not materially complete and needs to be amended or

modified. If an application is rejected, the decision should list in writing all factual, policy,

and legal grounds for rejection as well as a contact person for escalation. Applicants should

have a right to cure their application by making corrections based on written grounds for

rejection received.

4. Throughout the application process, Federal LMAs and PMAs should be required to provide

application status updates at the request of applicants. Greater transparency during and after

the application process has completed will improve the application submission process and

will provide documentation for applicants to use with other historic preservation review

processes such as the FCC’s NEPA review process

5. Applications that are neither formally approved nor rejected within 180 days of submission

for initial installation requests (or 90 days in the case of collocations or modifications) should

be deemed approved. These timeframes are similar timeframes to what the FCC established

for municipalities in land use approvals to expedite broadband infrastructure deployment.

Without this safeguard, applications may languish for years with no action taken by the

federal agency, which is contrary to the national policy promoting broadband throughout all

federal properties.

Lastly, the Working Group recommends a thorough evaluation of the August 15, 2017 Executive Order

13807 Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process

for Infrastructure Projects. The Order incorporates “broadband internet” projects in its efforts to “ensure

that the Federal environmental review and permitting process for infrastructure projects is coordinated,

11 ACHP Program Comment.

12

predictable, and transparent.” Agencies should be held accountable to implement the order’s directives

within a specified time period.12

5. Lease and renewal terms that do not incentivize

investment The Working Group recommends that executive agencies utilize easements or leases with 30 or more-

year terms with expectancy of renewal for wireline or wireless siting requests. The Telecommunications

Act and 10 U.S.C. §§ 2667 & 2668 contemplate that executive agencies may permit telecommunications

facilities installations on federal property through the use of easements or leases. Executive agencies

should be notified that leases are not required for wireline or wireless installations, but that easements are

an acceptable legal transaction for the placement of wireline and wireless facilities on federal property.

Agencies should also be notified that to minimize the cost— on both the agency and the provider—of

future siting applications, and given the extensive capital investment of long-lived assets required for the

installation of wireline and wireless infrastructure, it is in the public interest for applications to lead to

leases or easements with terms at least 30 years long and with renewal expectancy.

Ideally, lease terms should extend to the useful life of the assets. The Working Group urges the

standardization of lease terms within each type of technology. To avoid holdover leases, agencies should

begin the lease renewal process five years in advance of expiration of the lease. Site agreements often

expire without a clear path to renewal. Agency rights to terminate leases should be limited to reasons of

national security.

6. Unclear points of contact for local, state, and federal

leads for agencies The Working Group recommends that GSA, or other designated agency, should require each agency to

provide a contact person for handling applications related to each property. Under GSA’s Common Form

Application Section “Potential Antenna Lessee Document Check List,” the form states that a provider

may contact the “Contracting Officer or the Contracting Officer Representative listed on the

application...” GSA should clarify that all executive agencies must provide and maintain a current online

listing of the name and contact information for a contracting officer or representative for each federal

property for industry members to contact with questions related to the application form or wireless

installation process. This process should also apply to wireline broadband installations.

Each federal agency should designate a state contact that covers each state to ensure consistency across

field offices, forests, and national parks. Additionally, each federal agency should have a specific page on

its website for all “dedicated points of contact,” along with each agency’s “time to permit” information.

12 Secretarial Order 3355, Streamlining NEPA and Implementation of Executive Order 13807 Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects

(Dep’t of Interior Aug. 31, 2017) (DOI began its Executive Order implementation), available at

https://elips.doi.gov/elips/0/doc/4581/Page1.aspx.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/08/15/presidential-executive-order-establishing-discipline-and-accountability

13

One government entity, such as NTIA, should consistently compile this information on one online

portal.13

The Working Group encourages each federal agency to implement an escalation or appeal process when

broadband facility requests are delayed or denied. Furthermore, each agency should have an ombudsman

to resolve permitting problems. Formalizing this process will ensure more consistent treatment of

applications.

7. Difficulty getting updates on status of applications and

lack of transparency in agency-deployment application

process history

As discussed above, agencies should employ a a single online permitting application tracking mechanism.

GSA, or other designated federal agency, should require each executive agency to create a single online

application tracking mechanism so that the agenc(ies) and applicants can efficiently track the progress and

status of an application request. This will facilitate efficient handling and processing of applications. This

mechanism can also help applications stay on track to meet required timelines and serve as a useful tool to

communicate about application progress and status. The tracking mechanism will identify the appropriate

agency responsible, along with contact information, for a specific application. The Working Group

encourages the FCC and other federal agencies to review the Administration’s Federal Infrastructure

Permitting Dashboard,14 which includes infrastructure projects identified as Covered Projects under Title

41 of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, Department of Transportation projects,

and other tracked projects. This dashboard is not currently used to track broadband infrastructure projects

across federal agencies; however, agencies may find it efficient to track their projects in this manner.

All agencies should provide the applicant with information regarding the standard processing time for

permitting at the agency (within the established shot clock) so that providers can schedule construction

projects in a timely manner.

The Working Group also urges the FCC or Congress to set executive-level quantifiable goals for

broadband deployments such as collecting aggregate, industry-level commitment counts to deploy

broadband sites on federal lands, and agencies should publish performance against the goals. Each agency

should have an identified direct-reporting lead responsible for implementation by achieving actual

deployments. Federal agencies should focus on deployment results, beyond intermediary process changes.

Each agency should also create deployment transparency mechanism such as a monthly web post of the

number of contracts signed, new deployments, and new carriers deployed on existing sites. Every quarter,

federal agencies should transparently report the number of permitting applications they have processed.

13 See National Telecommunications Information Administration (NTIA), Broadband Interagency Working Group,

Broadband Opportunity Council Agencies’ Progress Report (Dep’t of Commerce Jan. 2017) (NTIA’s

BroadbandUSA website will house a one-stop portal), available at

https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/broadband_opportunity_council_agencies_progress_report_jan2017

.pdf. 14 See Federal Infrastructure Permitting Dashboard, available at https://www.permits.performance.gov/projects.

14

All federal Agencies should provide a regular report to identify coverage gaps and deficiencies with

respect to the current status of broadband deployment on federal lands. Regular publication of

information about areas designated by agencies as “telecom areas” would also be helpful. Agencies can

call for public input in identifying these areas. Such reporting will enable agencies to better access

broadband deployment and set quantifiable goals for broadband deployment on federal lands. Information

sharing can also reveal the challenges to providing service on federal lands at an economically feasible

cost and afford a platform to discuss solutions to these challenge

8. Lack of re-evaluation of processes and fees as

technologies evolve

The Working Group recommends that application forms be utilized to initiate amendments to existing

installations and the applicable lease, easement or right-of-way. Given the continually changing

technology and rapid growth of broadband, it is common practice that broadband installations will be

modified one or more times over the course of the multi-year arrangement, and some site augments may

involve an amendment to the controlling legal arrangement, whether a lease, easement, right of way or

otherwise. Common form applications are a convenient and logical mechanism for triggering, tracking

and managing such amendments. Thus, GSA should clarify that all executive agencies shall utilize the

GSA Common Form Application for new broadband infrastructure requests, and for amendments to

existing broadband infrastructure.

The Working Group also urges federal agencies to incorporate small cells, distributed antenna systems

(DAS), and indoor coverage into their streamlining processes. There is often a lag between the

introduction or increased use of a technology and when federal agencies adopt procedures to process the

siting requests. Federal agencies should create a system for how to evaluate new technologies and

determine how they should be reviewed for permitting.

9. DoD siting process costly and time-consuming The Working Group found that siting broadband facilities on Department of Defense (DoD) property

presents unique challenges. Consistent with all necessary measures to protect national security, DoD

agencies should streamline deployment as indicated in the above recommendations but in keeping with

national security interests.

The DoD should reexamine rules and policies regarding the permitting and deployment of broadband

within bases and on all DoD real estate, including separate authorizations required for services offered

over the same facilities. In some cases, cable operators have been prohibited from deploying Wi-Fi

facilities for use by Americans living on military bases.

The Department of the Navy (DoN) is a good example of a DoD agency that completed a thorough

example of its permitting processes and executed a path towards streamlining broadband deployment on

its property. Industry successfully collaborated with the DoN for two years on the development and

15

release of its memorandum titled “Streamlined Process for Commercial Broadband Deployment,” (Navy

Memo) which was signed by the Deputy Under Secretary of the Navy (DUSN) for Management on June

30, 2016.15 The new guidelines “set a goal for DON installation to meet or exceed national averages for

broadband coverage and capacity,” according to the official memorandum. According to the Wireless

Infrastructure Association, which coordinated industry participation, “the new wireless facility siting

procedures cut down a project coordination and siting deployment process that could take up to five or

more years to complete to less than one year.”16

The DoN is now evaluating an update to its memo to incorporate small cells, DAS, and indoor

deployments into its streamlining processes. Other DoD agencies should evaluate the effectiveness of the

Navy Memo process and implementation as they develop their own broadband infrastructure siting

review process.

The Working Group urges DoD agencies to employ shorter and parallel process steps, particularly

making JSC review concurrent with the RFP process. Agencies should accelerate the JSC pre-work,

application-to-bid mechanism to less than 30 days. Agencies should also streamline the RFP process by

moving it online, reducing processing to 30 days, and allowing multiple carriers “to win” per each RFP.

Military agencies should also streamline their RF spectrum clearance processes by eliminating duplicate

spectrum interference reviews where one has already been completed for a similar instillation. RF

clearance should be valid for an extended period of time. Additionally, agencies should incorporate all

possible spectrum bands for operation into the initial RF study so that providers do not have to repeatedly

conduct studies for new deployments or new carriers being added to the neutral host.

10. Siting barriers caused by federal funding clauses

The Working Group found that some states impose restrictions on broadband infrastructure deployment in

local parks developed with federal funds. For example, Virginia has a restriction that:

property acquired or developed with LWCF [Land & Water

Conservation Fund Act of 1965] assistance shall be retained and used for

public outdoor recreation in perpetuity. Any property so acquired and/or

developed shall not be wholly or partly converted to other than public

outdoor recreation uses without the approval of NPS pursuant to Section

6(f)(3) of the LWCF Act.17

Site reviewers in Virginia are interpreting this law as prohibiting wireless infrastructure deployment,

labeling such deployment as a prohibited commercial endeavor. It is not likely that the provision of

broadband services is the type of activity the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 was trying

15 Dep’t of the Navy, Deputy Under Secretary of the Navy Memo, Streamlined Process for Commercial Broadband Deployment (Jun. 30, 2016), available at http://www.doncio.navy.mil/ContentView.aspx?ID=8008. 16 Wireless Infrastructure Association, Wireless Industry Applauds U.S. Navy’s Push to Streamline Wireless Siting Process on Federal Bases (Jul. 8, 2016), available at https://wia.org/wireless-industry-applauds-u-s-navys-push-

streamline-wireless-siting-process-federal-bases/. 17 State of Virginia, Conversion of Use General Information, available at http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/recreational-

planning/document/lwcf-conversion.pdf.

16

to protect against. Therefore, the Working Group recommends that land-grant clauses precluding

commercial activity from taking place on the land provided for by grant should not be interpreted to

preclude broadband infrastructure deployment and provision of broadband services. All agencies, states,

and localities should be advised that deploying broadband is not within the meaning of prohibiting

commercial use of land developments funded by federal grants.